Thats why women have been ordered to conceal themselves before unknown persons and during their never-ending visits to markets to buy jewellery and make-up articles. The less they expose themselves, the less would be the temptation for the men.

Talking honestly, a women wearing see-through dress has greater chances to invite undue attention from the people, who will consider it their sacred duty to scan the lady head till toe, rather than a veiled and concealed lady, who is not fashionable, doesn't apply tons of makeup on her face and avoids her best becoming the talk of the town.

Sorry, but this happens 2 be a reality

is waajib the same as fard?
if so, i never knew that! seems that plenty of religious muslim women are content with hijaab...

That can only be explained by a lady or a person having knowledge about fiqh matters. But I do think, there is variety of opinions on the matter. In fiqh, diff opinions are acceptable, depends upon one's own inclination.

In my humble opinion, it just takes a piece of cloth to be used as a veil and loose outer cover( think they call it jilbab) and thats it.

Hi snakelegs!

There is a major difference of opinion regarding the issue. Heaps of scholars said it is compulsory, will still many others said it is not.

yeah...but we can't judge them as a religious muslimah or not.

Posted by sis al muwahiddah...

Ibn Qudâmah, a leading Hanbalî jurist and proponent of covering the face, says the following in al-Mughnî (9/498):

A male witness may see the face of the woman he is to be a witness for…

If a man engages in business with a woman, either buying and selling or entering into a rental agreement, then he has a right to see her face… It is related from Ahmad b. Hanbal that that he disliked his doing so if the woman in question is young, but not if she were old. It is likely that he meant that he disliked it for someone who feared temptation and in cases where it is not necessary for him to transact with her. As for when there is a need and where there is no fear of overt sexual arousal, there is no objection.
Dr. Muhammad b. Sâlih al-Duhaym, the presiding judge at the Layth District Courthouse in Saudi Arabia, is a contemporary scholar who regards covering the face to be obligatory. He issued the following ruling:
If a woman is living in a country, or in a time, or under circumstances where she cannot cover her face and hands – whether the reasons are societal, political, or related to public safety – and if she might face difficulty or might lose out on a greater good, then it is permitted for her to uncover her face and hands.

Many Hanafî jurists hold the view that a man can look at woman’s face as long as his doing so does not incite sexual desire. If it does incite such desire in him, then he is prohibited from looking at her face. Nevertheless, in cases where there is a compelling need for him to see her face, then he may look at it, even if he feels desire.

The eminent Hanafî scholar, `Alâ al-Dîn al-Samarqandî, writes in Tuhfah al-Fuqahâ’ (3/334):

If there is a necessity, then there is no objection to the man looking at her face, even if he feels desire. This is the case for the judge or the witness. They can look upon her face in the dispensation of justice or when carrying out the function of acting as a witness.

Likewise, he can do so if he is intent on marriage, since the purpose is not to indulge his sexual desires. This is because of what is related from the Prophet (peace be upon him) that he said to al-Mughîrah b. Shu`bah: “If you would take a look at her, it is better for fostering harmony between you.”

Scholars of Islamic Law make a distinction between matters that are prohibited for their inherent evil and matters that are prohibited only because they have the potential to lead up to the perpetration of an inherent evil. For instance, murder, fornication, and drug abuse are prohibited in their own right. By contrast, a woman showing her face in public is prohibited – by the scholars who regard it as prohibited – because of the temptation that it might cause and that might lead to the sin of fornication or adultery. The woman is not required to veil her face for the mere sake of covering it.

This is an important distinction in Islamic Law. Things that are prohibited in their own right cannot be permitted except in cases of dire necessity (darûrah). For instance, a person may not drink wine. However, if that person is choking on something and can only find wine to save himself, he may drink it out of necessity. By contrast, things that are prohibited only because they can lead to other unlawful activities are allowed for any valid need (hâjah).

Ibn al-Qayyim explains this principle in I`lâm al-Muwaqqi`în:

Prohibitions regarding the means to wrongdoing are not like things that are prohibited for their own sake. Prohibitions regarding the means to wrongdoing will be lifted for a valid need (hâjah). As for things that are prohibited for their own sake, their prohibition is not lifted except in cases of dire necessity (darûrah).

Source

Maybe everybody should be banned from wearing any clothes at all...

That would certainly lead to an end to the clash of civilizations.

Sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

thanks to those who answered. it is more complicated than i thought.
everytime i just think i know something - poof!
syilla,
your article was interesting.
since the ban is against the face covering and it is for security reasons, this might come under
since i don't live in u.k. i didn't vote. but i can see it as a valid security issue, unlike banning the hijaab which i think is just plain wrong.
btw, for those like me, who find the various degrees of covering confusing, the link on the OP gives a link to pictures and explantions of hijaab, niqab, burka, al-amira and shayla (which i never heard of before), khimar and chador.
here's the link to the illustrations:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/h...ils/html/1.stm

that would be an idea especially since are so thin textures so that you can see more through blouse or skirt than you would like to.

If a man did desire the face of a women, then we can say that the women would be accountable for not wearing the veil - according to the majority.

Btw, waajib is an order by our Prophet :SAW:, which are seen as orders by God Indirectly

Fard are orders by God Directly.

Why didn't they just Let the Muslims alone?

Because they are jealous of the hijaabs bro! They don't like how we be so cool so smooth!

they have to ban or comment on something....

Fixed

if we are going to ban this

we should also ban this

the Shpitzelach of hasidic women

as well as this

as well as this


nazarenos, participants who dress in robes and cone-shaped hoods to hide their identity.

because to me there is nothing as morally reprehensible as hypocrisy..
I am not sure why this is even a topic for a debate or a public vote?...
this doesn't concern anyone except she who is on a spiritual path!